Talk:Female Changeling
Her humanoid appearance Odo looks like a burn victim because he tries unsuccessfully to mimic the Bajoran nose. We know that more skilled changelings can mimic Klingons, humans, etc without flaw. So why does Female Changeling go for the burn victim look? Also, Laas goes for this same look, more or less. Why? Laas should have gone for either the Martok look or the Vulcan captain look. a. For some reason, the burn victim look is the easiest most natural look for changelings to do. b. The producers wanted to use the same make-up to make it easy for the audience to understand that Odo and the Founders are the same race. ::I always interpreted it as copying Odo's look so that he would recognize that they were the same people as him -- that is, to put him at ease with them. Regulation Bowling Alley 07:18, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Female Changeling's name I don't know why, but the idea of the female changeling SIGNING her name on the peace accord at the end of the series just doesn't sit well with me. Something about the idea of HER holding a pen and SIGNING! What name did she sign I wonder?!!!! :She may have a designation that we are uncertain of. Each changeling has their own consciousness, so they must have something to call each other or she could've signed on behalf of all changelings (Meaning that she signed as all, the collective.) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:38, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC) :: According to , when Odo asked the Female Changeling if she had a name, she went on and on about how changelings aren't individuals, and the link's great and so on. So that episode seems to imply that she doesn't have a name. I always assumed that she signed "...in the name of the Dominion" or something. The Federation might have already given her some kind of criminal registry to sign with, or they could have some designation for unnamed people, which I'm sure had to have been encountered before.--Tim Thomason 02:29, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC) ::: I always called her Salami Woman because that's what the name Salome Jens made me think of. S'pose that doesn't help much in this conversation though... Basically, yeah, she's just M. Noh Body. --Broik 02:36, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC) The Founder's writing style The "odd writing style" the Female Changeling displays in "What You Leave Behind" isn't all that odd. Many left-handed people curl their hands around the stylus when they write, myself included. Rather than inventing a deliberately alien mannerism for the role, it's far more likely that Salome Jens simply writes that way in real life. --Jimsmith 05:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Apocrypha Could someone familiar with Worlds of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Volume 3 add some info on her rescue in that novel by Taran'atar? --When it rains... it pours 11:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC) :You might want to re-read that book. Taran'atar doesn't rescue her. But, yeah, I'll add something about it. Willie 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC) ::I think either that section or the section on canon needs to be rewritten since it implies the information that Odo introduced her to..."solid intimacy" only appeared in the novels whereas in fact it is stated in "Favour the Bold". – Skteosk 14:24, October 11, 2009 (UTC) inconsistency of article title The title of the article is "*Female* Changing", yet the info box lists her/its gender as "none". Someone should resolve this inconsistency. Either her gender is female, or it has no gender and the name of the article is incorrect. :She was called the Female Changeling according to scripts and such. As such changelings don't have a gender as far as we know. Morder 15:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) ::The feminine article is used to refer to "her" in plenty of onscreen dialogs, too. That's justification enough to call "her" character "Female Changeling". Anyway, it's "Female Changeling" and not "Laas", "Odo", "Martok (changeling)", or any of the other various changeling characters. Which Changeling? The "female" one. That is all. SennySix 21:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC) :::In the character is called the "female shapeshifter" in the opening credits. Why is it that the article chooses to call her the female changeling? Are title credits considered a canon source? I don't recall the name "female changeling ever being spoken on the show. (Vince 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)) ::::The species are called Changelings consistently throughout the show. "Shapeshifter" is something of an epithet. If this wasn't a major character, she'd be on the Unnamed Changelings page because that's the species name. At any rate, in my opinion the article pages should reflect the credits, and we could list this detail here on this page under Background. Still, I think "Female Changeling" is the right name for this article because of the species name. --TribbleFurSuit 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) ::::: I agree entirely. I'll put in a note in background info, but I'm sure what I put in will undego many edits. ( 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)) ::::: Hey why was my background info removed? ( 06:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)) :::::: Since she was referred to as both "Female Changeling" and "Female Shapeshifter," we just put both names at the top. That pretty much covers it, I think; a background note further explaining that she was also referred to as a "Female Shapeshifter" shouldn't be necessary. --From Andoria with Love 19:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::: She was referred to as "the female changeling" by Weyoun 6 in Treachery, Faith, and the Great River. :::::::: ...and "Favor the Bold". --Alan 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::::::::: on most episodes its simply "and Salome Jems" with no name given to the character. Female changling seems to be simply what those on the station refer to her as as its the only way to describe her and as she's the only one who seems to have taken female form in their presence that makes sense. 10:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Also played by... It was added in the infobox that Nana Visitor also played the Changeling in the form of Nana Visitor. Am I the only one who finds this completely unnecessary? For one, I'm sure the Female Changeling changed into a few other characters, are we to add all of those actors? Also, if we add that here, are we to also add that Odo was also played by Salome Jens? Are to also add that The Doctor was also played by Jeri Ryan, Roxann Dawson, Robert Beltran, Kate Mulgrew, and probably several others. Ok, sure, we say that James T. Kirk was also played by Sandra Smith, so I guess there is precedent. I still don't think listing things like this are necessary, though, especially for characters like The Doctor who would have a bunch of additional actors listed on his infobox. --From Andoria with Love 09:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) :I think that the case of Kirk is different, as Kirk was actually in another person's body. In the case of the Doc and the Changeling, they only took on the form of another person and pretended to be them, they were not actually that person. For example, when she changed into Kira, she was not Kira, she was just pretending to be her. That's not the actress "playing" Kira.--31dot 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) spoilers at the beginning? :{moved from User talk:Archduk3) I have noticed that many character pages already mention at the very beginning what the person ends up doing by the the time the series ends etc. (almost all articles). In the specific case of the female changeling, it is an interesting point to mention, which is that she told them even before the war what she was going to do to them. How the readers read or take information is not my, or should not be our, problem. They can take it as they like. I dont think this is insulting anyone's intelligence. I see what you are saying and I was a bit ambiguous too but the juxtaposition seems nice. Finally, we do warn people about spoilers and that MA is in fact full of spoilers. Ah, now that I think about it, I actually dont care about arguing about this crap too now. Take it off if it makes your day or night or twilight. Oh and Duke, you should seriously read your talk page or debate it before you abuse your admin privileges, revert articles to your preference and then block them from editing indefinitely. That is indeed very uncool. This has nothing to do with making our readers idiots. There are spoilers and drawing of such connections all over the place here on MA, I dont know why this is particularly ticking you off. ....– Distantlycharmed 06:47, October 23, 2010 (UTC) :First, conversations about articles should be left at that article, this isn't about me or you, but the article. Second, don't make people read more than they have to; the longer the article, the less the casual reader is actual going to read while skimming it. Third, it is insulting to point out every little nuance with unnecessary explanations. The same is can be said about spoilers. If you don't have to spoil something, don't. Just because we have general spoilers at the top of articles, and out articles don't have to be spoiler free, isn't a reason to be adding them everywhere. As for the protection, it's staying on until someone else comes by and comments since this was important enough to keep reverting over after the explanation instead of starting a discussion here, and it's always been my policy to revert to a point before either editor added or subtracted the text in question from the article when there is a back and forth like this. If you think I'm abusing my admin powers, feel free to take it up with Cid of sulfur. - 07:09, October 23, 2010 (UTC) Look dude, I told you right up front that on second thought you can keep it the way it was, I dont feel like arguing about it. But now that we are starting a debate, let me say that, given what we strive to be here on MA - namely a very comprehensive encyclopedia - it is surprising to me that you would suggest to keep articles essentially as short as possible. All while there is a looong long article on an extra like Lt. Ayala, detailing his whereabouts in painful stalker-mode detail. Ha. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a Cliff's notes or quick summary for the lazy reader. As someone mentioned in the discussion about warp theory, we are not responsible for how readers will take something or how they will use the information etc. We just put everything out there and it is up to them to make of it as they want. Your argument about spoilers doesnt make sense. How is "have spoilers, and we know they are everywhere but also dont add them either" a rule or guidance of any kind that someone can go by? What I'm hearing here is that it is essentially arbitrary. Since you reverted my edit, you should have brought it to the talk page instead of engaging in an edit war and then blocking the article and then waiting for me to take it to talk page so you can give me your third degree about it. Finally, pointing out that you seem to be abusing your admin privilege here to indefinitely block an article doesnt mean Im a 12 year old who will take it to the principal. I just pointed out that it was uncool on your part. Anyway, this debate wont go anywhere and this entire talk page was completely unnecessary in the first place and could have been avoided by you reading your talk page and reverting the edit back to how it was, as i suggested, since i didnt feel like arguing about it, instead of making such a big deal out of it. – Distantlycharmed 07:29, October 23, 2010 (UTC) :First, that's a lot of text for someone who keeps insisting they don't care. Second, your first revert was a "why remove this?" question, which I answered when reverting that. At that point, if any discussion was required, you should have started it instead of reverting again, and you did seem to think a discussion was necessary since you spent more than one sentence counterpointing just one of the reasons I said I removed it. At that point, if this wasn't the middle of the night and there were more admins around, I wouldn't have asked myself to stop an edit war from continuing. That is also exactly the reason I didn't set this block to expire, it requires another admin to intervene, and this pretty much insures one will. Third, neither Cid or sulfur is the principal or boss here, but they are the people you should be talking to if you think an admin is abusing their power, and you don't have to find my actions cool since I was doing the same thing I always do when protecting a page. The status quo doesn't need a consensus, but disputed changes do. As for me not reading my talk page, it would seem that I do, since I was able to respond to both of your hasty posts on everything I'm doing wrong. It's not my fault you couldn't wait ten minutes for a response, or the fact you seem to think your statements wouldn't get one. - 08:04, October 23, 2010 (UTC) Dont give me that. You oculd have set a time limit for the expiration. It doesnt require several admins to set a time limit. Also, I didnt know othere are only 3 admins on MA. Im puzzled as to why keep mentioning cid and sulfur. err..whatever. Have a good night without too many spoilers hopefully. – Distantlycharmed 08:19, October 23, 2010 (UTC) ::I see nothing improper about Archduk's actions. He acted to prevent disruption of MA, which is one of the things admins are expected to do. Any admin can lift the time limit when the issue is resolved, so that issue is being a little overblown. Cid and Sulfur are bureaucrats and have the authority to remove admin status from someone, this is why they have been mentioned, not because there are "only 3" admins.--31dot 10:41, October 23, 2010 (UTC) :::Yeah. The only thing I can see coming even close to an "admin misconduct" is the fact that Archduk3 acted (as admin) as the arbiter of some dispute he was personally involved in (as user). This is something that admins should avoid wherever possible, and I think that this situation could have been resolved by another admin even hours later. There wasn't any specific urgency about it. :::However, the way Admin-Archduk3 handled the situation involving User-Archduk3 is not a grossly bad one. As he explained, the revert was to a pre-dispute state (which has become something of a standard around here, where disputes and a necessary consensus are concerned), and an indefinite protection was a safe way to get others involved - which happened now. :::What I'm going to do is to change the protection to a length of 1 week with, of course, the possibility to lift this protection earlier if a consensus is reached before. Regarding that, let's discuss the proposed change further. I personally think that the phrase in question should not be added. Not necessarily because of any spoiler concerns, but first and foremost because the information about some utterance "foreshadowing" some action years later doesn't strike me as too encyclopedic. It is a hindsight interpretation of the editor and probably not something you'd find in a history book. -- Cid Highwind 11:33, October 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::When Cid says "not something you'd find in a history book" he's very close to the real issue with the phrase as I see it: it's about point of view. Foreshadowing happens in fictional narratives; Hegelian views of the historical dialectic aside, it doesn't happen in history. If this were an encyclopedia article about the fictional character, as you'd find in Wikipedia, such a phrase would be fine; but if our point of view is meant to be that of a historian in the future of the Star Trek universe, then it's not. ::::That said, I do think it was slightly unseemly for Archduk to use the admin tool to shut down a dispute he was involved in. It would have been better to let another admin handle the matter. —Josiah Rowe 20:36, October 23, 2010 (UTC) Ok so I do get Cid's and Josiah's point, however, I have many times observed this practice in many episode summaries and even background section, such as - for example - in the episode where one of the quotes and even in-text summary says: "- Sisko, '''foreshadowing' the events of '' Quote section as well as in the Background section where it says " Sisko references the discovery of the wormhole (which occurred in "Emissary"), and the coming war with the Dominion ('foreshadowing''' the events of "Call to Arms" and the major story arc of seasons 6 and 7),"'' as well as Act Two which says "He explains that he had been experiencing a vision of B'hala, as if he was really there, and had for one moment understood it all: B'hala, the Orbs, the Occupation of Bajor, the discovery of the wormhole, and the coming war with the Dominion – thereby referencing the past and '''foreshadowing' the future."'' I have seen this kind on numerous upon numerous of occasions now here on MA (I dont recall them all of course), and so I believed my entry to the Female Changeling article to be valid and not violating anything in terms of encyclopedia or history book violation etc. it was a nice juxtaposition, as she did end up ordering the extermination of all Cardassians at the end. Finally, these are fictional characters, - even though we here (not me, I wasnt here), erroneously, decided to disregard that fact and pretend that it is history, but it isnt, really folks. Star Trek is a fictional universe and we have made that quite clear on numerous occasions, when someone had proposed a change to some tech article because it wasnt "scientifically sound" based on our current, real world understanding of an issue (evolution, genetic engineering, medical advances, engineering, warp theory etc anyone?). We always tell newbies "hey, this is a fictional universe". Now treating it as history seems bizarre to me...but oh well. I also understand that simply because "it is everywhere else" doesnt mean it is right, but this is not an isolated thing to be only found in very few articles, this is quite commonplace. We use this kind of "foreshadowing" language quite extensively throughout MA. Saying it is wrong would then require going back through every episode summary, background info and article basically (32,000 +) to make sure no one talks like that. – Distantlycharmed 21:18, October 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::You're forgetting the POV of everything you're listing above. Most of those are from background notes. Others are from memorable quote sections (which are from the "real world" POV). The ones in the summaries should not be there. And if you can't get through the fact that we are treating these people as if it was real history and want to treat it all like fiction, then I really don't see why you're still spending any time here at all. -- sulfur 21:49, October 23, 2010 (UTC) Ok sulfur, check your bad attitude and personal dislike for me at the door and let's stay focused on the point of contention here ok? All these low blows and subtle insults on your part are starting to get annoying, not to mention they are disruptive, unbecoming of an admin, go agasint MA policy, are just plain rude and really uncalled for. Your pointing out the POV on those is duly noted and you could have done that without inserting your usual personal insults in there. The fact that I do not agree with a certain kind of policy does not mean I shouldnt be editing here or that it is your place to tell me/ask me or anyone else for that matter that they shouldnt even bother. What does me not pretending that the Star Trek universe is real history have anything, whatsoever, to do with me editing here and my valuable contributions? And who are you to make that call anyway? It's actually pretty sad and pathetic of you to think that unless someone considers the Star Trek universe as real history, they dont belong here. You are way out of line and your comment, as usual as pertaining to me, has little to do with making a solid argument as much as it has the "gtfo" attitude that you have been exhibiting towards me quite a few times now.– Distantlycharmed 00:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::Episode summaries, actually whole episode pages, are real world POV. They are describing an episode. Folks in-universe wouldn't be describing these various events together as an episode, or collecting them into acts. So "foreshadowing" is fine. And you're all big jerks. --bp 01:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Can everyone just take a breather? I've forgotten what the actual issue is.--31dot 02:01, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::It was about the virtues of self-sealing stembolts over reverse ratcheters, right? -Angry Future Romulan 02:16, October 24, 2010 (UTC)